Hi My Name Is Aaron And Im A Christian How Are You Today/nite/morning/afternoon?

[Thackerie]

To my knowledge, Ex-C isn't just for atheists.

 

True, but it can be quite taxing for those of us who are agnostics/atheists to have other kinds of woo and spiritual nonsense pushed on us, and to be told that we're somehow limited in our thinking because we won't accept the self-induced "trips" that others are experiencing in their own heads and are insisting that this is somehow more real than what the rest of us experience. The woo that I've suffered with for the last couple of decades is quite enough, thanks. Just because this woo isn't Christian woo doesn't make it any better than any other woo. There is a good reason I don't go into the Ex-Christian Spirituality section, and it's so I don't have to read through long-winded passages of pseudo-intellectual blather about trans-what-ever-the-hell-it-is-woos-go-on-about.

 

On a tangential note, why do woos use the word prefix "trans-" so much in their phraseology? Does it make what is being said sound more important, or something?

 

+1000

 

This is precisely the reason I don't go into the spirituality forum or discuss spirituality on other forums with certain adherents of it; I don't like being insulted.

[blackpudd1n]

To my knowledge, Ex-C isn't just for atheists.

 

True, but it can be quite taxing for those of us who are agnostics/atheists to have other kinds of woo and spiritual nonsense pushed on us, and to be told that we're somehow limited in our thinking because we won't accept the self-induced "trips" that others are experiencing in their own heads and are insisting that this is somehow more real than what the rest of us experience. The woo that I've suffered with for the last couple of decades is quite enough, thanks. Just because this woo isn't Christian woo doesn't make it any better than any other woo. There is a good reason I don't go into the Ex-Christian Spirituality section, and it's so I don't have to read through long-winded passages of pseudo-intellectual blather about trans-what-ever-the-hell-it-is-woos-go-on-about.

 

On a tangential note, why do woos use the word prefix "trans-" so much in their phraseology? Does it make what is being said sound more important, or something?

 

+1000

 

This is precisely the reason I don't go into the spirituality forum or discuss spirituality on other forums with certain adherents of it; I don't like being insulted.

 

That's how I'm still feeling. Like I'm inferior because I don't buy into it. And you know, when I was in the midst of my deconversion, towards the end when I had very pagan leanings, I was very into spiritualism. I believed I could call Maori ancestors across the waters from NZ, I put down accidents on certain stretches of roads to "unhappy spirits" that I could feel, I believed that even plain old rocks had energy and were living organisms of a different kind, drawing ships to the coast to be wrecked upon them.

 

And then I realised that it was an act of faith for me to believe these things. I also have bipolar, and as my understanding of how the brain works grew, I came to realise that it was all in my head.

 

Now, I've tried to see things from the other side. But when I feel as though my intelligence has been insulted, and when I can't make heads or tails of what someone else is saying because it's not in plain english, and particularly when I can follow university lecturers, that's when I start to suspect that I'm being fed bullshit and the joke's on me. And I know for a fact that I'm not stupid, because I tested with a 98% learning ability as a child. There is very little that my mind cannot grasp. It might take me a bit of time, particularly with science due to how little I know of it, but it gets there.

[par4dcourse]

I'm getting a distinct "separate but equal" for atheists/spirituals vibe.

[Antlerman]

I'm getting a distinct "separate but equal" for atheists/spirituals vibe.

So you're saying you're willing to treat those who embrace spiritual practices as ExChristians as integrated equals? No more of the 'woo, prove it, where's your evidence for your woo? Quit trying to push your woo on us', business every time some member dares to speak their thoughts about this, here and everywhere else on the forum? Can we remove the protected spirituality forum for members now and tell them they won't have that sort of 'to the back of the bus with you, woo-woo' treatment? Is that day here? Have you arrived at a place open to genuine integration? "Imagine there's no heaven, and no religion too... Imagine all the people, living life in peace... you can say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... you too can join us, and the world can live as one".

[Deva]

"Separate but equal" denotes the way the old southern USA segregated blacks prior to the late 1960's. Needless to say, it was separate but not equal. It is NOT a compliment. Sorry you feel that way, Par.

[Antlerman]

But when I feel as though my intelligence has been insulted, and when I can't make heads or tails of what someone else is saying because it's not in plain english, and particularly when I can follow university lecturers, that's when I start to suspect that I'm being fed bullshit and the joke's on me.

I am sorry if I have ever come off in anyway that has made you feel put down, unintelligent, or in any way inferior. I don't see you that way at all, but I will acknowledge that I have been a bit forceful in what became a sort of push-back against all the rationalist attacks against the members with spiritual practices on this site. It had gotten so bad, and there we so many complaints that the Webmaster of the site created the spirituality forum to allow members a safe-zone to speak without all the harassment they were experiencing every time they dared open their mouths in these areas. I'm personally going to tone down that push-back now as it clearly has unfortunate negative side-effects.

 

As far as the things I present, they assuredly are not bullshit. They draw from areas of modernity, post-modernity, and more where I am at in a post-post-modernity. I'll link you to a couple references you can look over at your leisure that address the whole 'stages of consciousness' that I talk about quite a lot. Perhaps reading about it directly won't be as confusing as I may make it sound. I came to see this after parsing apart areas of fascination that came to me years ago in areas of post-modernity such as semiotics, structuralism, various myth studies, etc. In the first link these stages can be found on pages 53-58 within the article. I have not read the entire thing myself, so I may have some differences of view, that I'm unaware of: http://anti-matters..../74-67-1-PB.pdf

 

The other link is to a paper I just found out about yesterday, and really haven't had a chance to go into much at this point, but so far looks interesting as she works off of those like Gebser and Wilber and Aurubindo, in an integral approach to these things. Again, I'm not beholden to everything in the article as I haven't read it yet: http://integral-review.org/documents/Gidley,%20Evolution%20of%20Consciousness%20as%20Planetary%20Imperative%205,%202007.pdf

 

These can show you a little more what the types of areas of thinking I'm drawing from when I try to integrate the spiritual into these ways of seeing and understanding the world. But again, the spiritual is not equal to these ways of thinking. Not at all. But spiritual experience understood through these ways of understanding the world most definitely are more compatible within a world of post-mythic thinking. Spend your time with it, and forgive me for coming off as insulting to you.

[Vigile]

The bottom line is that the spiritual folk always take well defined words in the language and try redefine/assign them to mean something else i.e. god is love - no silly love is love and we grow up learning what that is (usually) and it becomes a second nature. It all still happens in the brain.

 

I'm pretty much one of the rationalists here that lines up more with people like yourself and Florduh, but I've had these discussions with AM for years now and have drawn a couple of lightly-held conclusions.

 

I'm not going to pretend to understand what AM goes on about as my brain is just not wired that way. From what I can gather, however, a large part of his position is that not everything that is valid can be objectively measured. Love, for instance, takes place in your head, but it is both necessary (children without it will literally die) and valid. Collective consciousness is something too that is tough to measure, yet valid. You yourself often juxtapose American values with values in SA.

 

I personally don't want to or feel I need to meditate or 'seek a higher plane' whatever the fuck that means. But it is fairly clear to me that what I need and what others need aren't always going to match up. For instance, I'm an introvert. I'm not generally shy, but I feel drained when I don't get about 70% alone time in my life. An extrovert, which most people lean toward, feel the opposite. They feel drained by too much alone time and refuel around others.

 

Why can't some just be spiritually-oriented and others be like you and I who find little personal value in what is traditionally referred to as spirituality?

 

Another example along these lines. I am statistically-oriented and a big picture type of person. I can easily understand the methods used by social scientists and can understand broad conclusions that are supported by a large number of factors. Meanwhile, my father and brother are both very mechanically/analytically oriented and both enjoy and understand minute details necessary in the field of electronics, engineering etc... I've tried to take classes on engineering and electricity and it feels like the instructor is putting a screw driver in my brain. I don't like to study it, it doesn't come easily to me and I shrink back against it with every inch of my being.

 

I see this chasm between the spiritually oriented members and the atheist types much like I see the divide between the way my brain is wired and the way my father and brother's brains are wired. They appear to me, as long as they aren't making any ridiculous unsupported claims -- such as life after death or ghosts -- to be just looking at another part of the elephant.

 

My $0.02

 

Ps, the human brain is wired to understand the world in terms of metaphors, which I've used heavily in this post. This pod cast is almost infinitely interesting and goes into a great deal of detail how the brain processes reality: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/george_lakoff_enlightenments_old_and_new/

 

I've used metaphors here to try and explain my understanding of AM's positions, but it's also interesting to consider that perhaps his and those like him who are attracted to spirituality in the way they are might not just be a different type of metaphor than metaphors people like you and I use to understand the reality we live in.

[Vigile]

I don't trust anybody who says he has a handle on the real truth. It's embarrassing as I look back at my life and see how many times I thought I now had the REAL truth--and didn't. So far everybody I've ever heard say that has been totally wrong

 

Clearly you haven't met me yet.

 

BTW, I'm really enjoying your posts. I don't think I've read much of your previous posts until I started in on this thread.

[LivingLife]

The bottom line is that the spiritual folk always take well defined words in the language and try redefine/assign them to mean something else i.e. god is love - no silly love is love and we grow up learning what that is (usually) and it becomes a second nature. It all still happens in the brain.

 

I'm pretty much one of the rationalists here that lines up more with people like yourself and Florduh, but I've had these discussions with AM for years now and have drawn a couple of lightly-held conclusions.

 

I'm not going to pretend to understand what AM goes on about as my brain is just not wired that way.  From what I can gather, however, a large part of his position is that not everything that is valid can be objectively measured.  Love, for instance, takes place in your head, but it is both necessary (children without it will literally die) and valid.  Collective consciousness is something too that is tough to measure, yet valid.  You yourself often juxtapose American values with values in SA.

Yes I do bring in an SA perspective but why call it a collective consciousness.  That is just two words strung together and can mean anything. The fact that folk in the US, Aus, NZ, UK appreciate my perspective means that it is universal but the trend does seem to indicate uniformity from the Brit culture. Let me expand. The Places like SA, NZ and Aus got there independence very much later in life than the US and as such were privy to the evolving Brit culture wrt religion and the monarchy and the lesser role it played out in society.

 

Perhaps the US was on a similar path but since the early 20th century with the prohibition laws and now the silly ass laws against gays still in place in the 21st century it got sidetracked with the ideals of McCarthyism and all this family value and American dream™ shit. There really are a whole lot of labels in the US culture that were relatively foreign to me before I started interacting with US folk on-line.

I personally don't want to or feel I need to meditate or 'seek a higher plane' whatever the fuck that means.  But it is fairly clear to me that what I need and what others need aren't always going to match up.  For instance, I'm an introvert.  I'm not generally shy, but I feel drained when I don't get about 70% alone time in my life.  An extrovert, which most people lean toward, feel the opposite.  They feel drained by too much alone time and refuel around others.

 

Why can't some just be spiritually-oriented and others be like you and I who find little personal value in what is traditionally referred to as spirituality?

Is it the not same pleading the woos use to be left to their own beliefs inferring folk like us should simply shaddup? It sounds the same to me. The difference is the alternate spiritually folk are generally no danger to others and most (here anyway) do not even make a blip on the radar screen.

Another example along these lines.  I am statistically-oriented and a big picture type of person.  I can easily understand the methods used by social scientists and can understand broad conclusions that are supported by a large number of factors.  Meanwhile, my father and brother are both very mechanically/analytically oriented and both enjoy and understand minute details necessary in the field of electronics, engineering etc...  I've tried to take classes on engineering and electricity and it feels like the instructor is putting a screw driver in my brain.  I don't like to study it, it doesn't come easily to me and I shrink back against it with every inch of my being.

 

I see this chasm between the spiritually oriented members and the atheist types much like I see the divide between the way my brain is wired and the way my father and brother's brains are wired.  They appear to me, as long as they aren't making any ridiculous unsupported claims -- such as life after death or ghosts -- to be just looking at another part of the elephant.

Odd you should use this as this is my field of expertise. The difference here (apart from your inability or lack of interest to comprehend [meant in a non condescending way]) is that whatever the sub discipline, every person can practice the experiments and come to the exact same results.  World wide, there is only one way to connect a transistor into a circuit. Transistor-transistor logic TTL is still taught today although the only transistors we use these days are power transistors in amplifiers or various types, everything else is now in a few chips.

 

The "mystery of electronics" can be learned and repeated with a 100% success rate. For example a simple circuit diagram with all the symbols for diodes, resistors, capacitors, transistors seems overwhelming to the layman but with the meanings explained the circuit can start to make sense.

 

Simple battery charger circuit and symbol key (sample)

 

Anyone in the world can build this charger and if all connected up right and soldered properly, it will work 100% of the time. These symbols have not changed (much) since I learned them in the late 70's.

Ps, the human brain is wired to understand the world in terms of metaphors, which I've used heavily in this post. This pod cast is almost infinitely interesting and goes into a great deal of detail how the brain processes reality: http://www.pointofin...ts_old_and_new/

 

I've used metaphors here to try and explain my understanding of AM's positions, but it's also interesting to consider that perhaps his and those like him who are attracted to spirituality in the way they are might not just be a different type of metaphor than metaphors people like you and I use to understand the reality we live in.  

We really do not need metaphors to describe reality; so I disagree slightly but understand what you are implying. Metaphors and similes are used to convey a message of something unknown to relate it to the receiver's frame of reference.

 

Fiction would be very boring if they used my style of writing. I seldom read fiction but enjoy a good movie even if it is imagination stretched to the limit.

 

Perhaps this focuses on a key issue of escapism? When you watch a show, a movie, a series and soapie, it is an escape from reality and the mundaneness of day to day living.  The art of story telling is a dying art.

 

You probably gathered I can go into a lot of detail when dealing with my pet subjects and look for illustrations to better convey what I am trying to say (like I did above) The one thing you need not do reading what I post is a thesaurus to look up $5 words and phrases. I speak to the cognitive side of the brain and have no appeal to emotions (I hope) whereas the Spiritual guys liberally sprinkle their posts with metaphors, redefined comparisons and appeals to emotion.

 

Does this mean I am emotionless? No! I can shed a tear watching a tear jerker movie or reading something that elicits an emotional response, I am not a robot. The BS filter installed now lets little through post my woo daze.

[Vigile]

why call it a collective consciousness.

 

Why not? You got the gist, right? The point is, it is intangible yet universally recognizable.

 

Is it the not same pleading the woos use to be left to their own beliefs inferring folk like us should simply shaddup?

 

Not sure how to respond to this. You seem to be addressing a point I am not making here. I'm not sure how to make my original point any clearer than it is, so I won't try and readdress it here as it will just further muck up the already murky waters of this conversation.

[LivingLife]

Not sure how to respond to this. You seem to be addressing a point I am not making here.

I was just turning the pleading around as the christians simply wish to be left alone to worship and/or believe in peace all the while waving their dicks in our faces. I did get your intent, I should have clarified that.

 

I think I have stated that personal beliefs of folk do not affect me but posting to a discussion forum, even my ideas are open to challenges.  It would be frigging boring if someone posted something and like woo sites get 10 pages of amens.

[Antlerman]

The bottom line is that the spiritual folk always take well defined words in the language and try redefine/assign them to mean something else i.e. god is love - no silly love is love and we grow up learning what that is (usually) and it becomes a second nature. It all still happens in the brain.

 

I'm pretty much one of the rationalists here that lines up more with people like yourself and Florduh, but I've had these discussions with AM for years now and have drawn a couple of lightly-held conclusions.

 

I'm not going to pretend to understand what AM goes on about as my brain is just not wired that way. From what I can gather, however, a large part of his position is that not everything that is valid can be objectively measured. Love, for instance, takes place in your head, but it is both necessary (children without it will literally die) and valid. Collective consciousness is something too that is tough to measure, yet valid. You yourself often juxtapose American values with values in SA.

 

I personally don't want to or feel I need to meditate or 'seek a higher plane' whatever the fuck that means. But it is fairly clear to me that what I need and what others need aren't always going to match up. For instance, I'm an introvert. I'm not generally shy, but I feel drained when I don't get about 70% alone time in my life. An extrovert, which most people lean toward, feel the opposite. They feel drained by too much alone time and refuel around others.

 

Why can't some just be spiritually-oriented and others be like you and I who find little personal value in what is traditionally referred to as spirituality?

 

Another example along these lines. I am statistically-oriented and a big picture type of person. I can easily understand the methods used by social scientists and can understand broad conclusions that are supported by a large number of factors. Meanwhile, my father and brother are both very mechanically/analytically oriented and both enjoy and understand minute details necessary in the field of electronics, engineering etc... I've tried to take classes on engineering and electricity and it feels like the instructor is putting a screw driver in my brain. I don't like to study it, it doesn't come easily to me and I shrink back against it with every inch of my being.

 

I see this chasm between the spiritually oriented members and the atheist types much like I see the divide between the way my brain is wired and the way my father and brother's brains are wired. They appear to me, as long as they aren't making any ridiculous unsupported claims -- such as life after death or ghosts -- to be just looking at another part of the elephant.

 

My $0.02

 

Ps, the human brain is wired to understand the world in terms of metaphors, which I've used heavily in this post. This pod cast is almost infinitely interesting and goes into a great deal of detail how the brain processes reality: http://www.pointofin...ts_old_and_new/

 

I've used metaphors here to try and explain my understanding of AM's positions, but it's also interesting to consider that perhaps his and those like him who are attracted to spirituality in the way they are might not just be a different type of metaphor than metaphors people like you and I use to understand the reality we live in.

Very well said. Great insights.

[Vigile]

even my ideas are open to challenges.

 

Yeah, I agree, all ideas should be open to challenges. I do, however, support the no challenge spiritual forum simply due to the dynamics of this site. Those who wish to discuss their ideas would simply be swamped responding to challenges if they didn't have their own area of the forum. This is how it was here before we agreed to create it. Considering the mission of this site is supporting xers, not hashing out the truth, whatever that is, it makes sense to create an area where those of the spiritual persuasion can just discuss their ideas without we rationalists constantly butting in with "prove it!" Outside that particular section, it's no holds barred, so I don't see any issue.

[Antlerman]

We really do not need metaphors to describe reality; so I disagree slightly but understand what you are implying. Metaphors and similes are used to convey a message of something unknown to relate it to the receiver's frame of reference.

 

Fiction would be very boring if they used my style of writing. I seldom read fiction but enjoy a good movie even if it is imagination stretched to the limit.

 

Perhaps this focuses on a key issue of escapism? When you watch a show, a movie, a series and soapie, it is an escape from reality and the mundaneness of day to day living. The art of story telling is a dying art.

 

You probably gathered I can go into a lot of detail when dealing with my pet subjects and look for illustrations to better convey what I am trying to say (like I did above) The one thing you need not do reading what I post is a thesaurus to look up $5 words and phrases. I speak to the cognitive side of the brain and have no appeal to emotions (I hope) whereas the Spiritual guys liberally sprinkle their posts with metaphors, redefined comparisons and appeals to emotion.

 

Does this mean I am emotionless? No! I can shed a tear watching a tear jerker movie or reading something that elicits an emotional response, I am not a robot. The BS filter installed now lets little through post my woo daze.

This is a fascinating look at how you perceive the world. Yes, as Vigile says we are wired differently. As such though, it is completely unfair of you to brand everything that doesn't align with your lens of reality as "woo". I have to say that such liberal use of it as you do, really betrays something of your discomfort with anything that doesn't align with reality for you. How you see reality to me is flat and sterile, but that doesn't mean you're a 'flat'. I'm sure you're not, just as those who see the world as I do are not "woos". I'm going to avoid stereotyping those who see reality as you do as "the flats" in referring to humans as a stereotype. It only serves to do what Christians love to do which is make their truth an exclusive truth - the "saved" as opposed to the "lost". It's really the same thing, just saying 'the woos' instead of the 'the lost'. They have no room in their reality for diversity of views.

 

As far as the metaphor reference, it goes way beyond just conveying some concrete reality as yet unknown to the receivers mind. No, it is expressive of intangilbles that cannot be expressed any other way. I'm going to link to a wonderful article I first read many years ago that I would enjoy hearing how it impresses you reading it. To quote just one wonderful snippet from it that underscores well what I am saying here,

 

"Not only is imagination a strain; even to imagine what a symbolic world is like is difficult. Poetry is turned into prose, truth into statistics, understanding into facts, education into note-taking, art into criticism, symbols into signs, faith into beliefs. That which cannot be listed, out-lined, dated, keypunched, reduced to a formula, fed into a computer, or sold through commercials cannot be thought or experienced.

 

Our situation calls to mind a backstage interview with Anna Pavlova, the dancer. Following an illustrious and moving performance, she was asked the meaning of the dance. She replied, “If I could say it, do you think I should have danced it?” To give dance a literal meaning would be to reduce dancing to something else. It would lose its capacity to involve the whole person. And one would miss all the subtle nuances and delicate shadings and rich polyvalences of the dance itself."

 

The article is on the problem of Biblical Literalism, and how that is is in fact a symptom, not the cause. Living life as a dance, seeing the world as a song, is not a scientific proposition, nor is living it that way 'woo'. It's Living Life for humans.

 

Link: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332

[LivingLife]

Yeah, I agree, all ideas should be open to challenges. I do, however, support the no challenge spiritual forum simply due to the dynamics of this site.

I only wondered in there by mistake once w/o reading the rules for that forum. Since then I may browse occasionally but usually it has no draw in subject matter I care to discuss or read. Coming to LD however does not afford their views the same courtesy.

 

It s pretty easy to start a new thread there with a citation from here, hit quote, select all, C+P to a new thread there and wallah, protection guaranteed.

[Antlerman]

Coming to LD however does not afford their views the same courtesy.

Their views - the sinners, the lost, the woos. Us and them. Their.

 

Do you not hear yourself?

[LivingLife]

Coming to LD however does not afford their views the same courtesy.

Their views - the sinners, the lost, the woos. Us and them. Their.

 

Do you not hear yourself?

Yes I do, do you have a problem with that? The "us and them" does not come from the atheists.

 

Do you not hear yourself speaking "veiled fundispeak"?

 

the sinners, the lost...

 

How many times do you want to go around this tree?

[Vigile]

I only wondered in there by mistake once w/o reading the rules for that forum. Since then I may browse occasionally but usually it has no draw in subject matter I care to discuss or read.

 

Agree. I have no interest in it and only occasionally mistakenly wander in or get side tracked by something there that appears to have some interesting promise.

 

Coming to LD however does not afford their views the same courtesy.

 

Agree too. But I would add that what's good for the goose here. If they are making wild ass claims then yeah, shoot them down. But if they claim people like you and I are being too rigid in our understanding I think we too can be fairly challenged. I think that's what's happening here.

[Antlerman]

Coming to LD however does not afford their views the same courtesy.

Their views - the sinners, the lost, the woos. Us and them. Their.

 

Do you not hear yourself?

Yes I do, do you have a problem with that? The "us and them" does not come from the atheists.

 

Do you not hear yourself speaking "veiled fundispeak"?

 

the sinners, the lost...

 

How many times do you want to go around this tree?

This is what I am trying to tell you I hear you sound like. You create a division of 'the woos' as something out of touch with reality. It is a you versus them mentality. Your language is riddled with it. How we speak of others this way betrays very much what I perceive of as the same mentality that Christians have. I do not use that language. Why do you?

 

Their forum, our forum. Was it not you who suggested to me to go start my own forum where I could discuss these views I have, and essentially leave this forum to non-spiritual subjects? Lines of division. I'm for integration. You? Are you for that?

 

And we will go around on this as I don't believe separating blacks from whites, atheists from the spiritual ExC's, is healthy for this site. The spirituality forum is an unfortunate necessity because of those who can't seem to rise above their fundamentalist mentalities. It would be ideal if we could all rise above these editorializing classifications and stereotypes. No one is asking you to 'buy' anything. But you are being asked to show respect to members here. That is me speaking as a moderator.

[par4dcourse]

So you're saying you're willing to treat those who embrace spiritual practices as ExChristians as integrated equals? No more of the 'woo, prove it, where's your evidence for your woo? Quit trying to push your woo on us', business every time some member dares to speak their thoughts about this, here and everywhere else on the forum? Can we remove the protected spirituality forum for members now and tell them they won't have that sort of 'to the back of the bus with you, woo-woo' treatment? Is that day here? Have you arrived at a place open to genuine integration? "Imagine there's no heaven, and no religion too... Imagine all the people, living life in peace... you can say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... you too can join us, and the world can live as one".

 

Don't remember "separate but equal" working all that well the first time.(

Put a banner on arrival. "Attention Atheists. Please talk amongst yourselves and don't bother the more spiritual member(s)."

[Antlerman]

Don't remember "separate but equal" working all that well the first time.(

Put a banner on arrival. "Attention Atheists. Please talk amongst yourselves and don't bother the more spiritual member(s)."

So, you're defining an atheist as those who are unbridled antagonists to those with other views? Funny, I never was that in all the years I proudly called myself an Atheist.

[LivingLife]

--snip-

You really itching for a fight aren't you?

[Antlerman]

--snip-

You really itching for a fight aren't you?

Actually not at all. I would simply appreciate you backing off on your 'woo' rhetoric. It interferes with intelligent dialog, which is what I would really enjoy having. It's like having to listen to someone unnecessarily lace their language with 'niggers'. Kind of makes of distraction and hard to see past that. Can you dialog without the editorializing epithets? Then we can happily get back to our discussion.

[mymistake]

I recognize the word "woo" is offensive. However I am offended by the idea that I have to treat other people's religion as if it is in touch with reality. Do you have suggestions on how to show respect for a person when they insist on sharing absurdity as if it is reality? This is actually a problem that goes beyond this forum and into real life.

[LivingLife]

Woo

4.

to

seek

to

persuade

(a

person,

group,

etc.),

as to do

something;

solicit;

importune.

Synonyms: petition, sue, address,

entreat;

butter

up.

http://dictionary.re....com/browse/woo

Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.

 

Here's a

dictionary definition of woo-woo:

adj.

concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious;

new agey

. Also

n

.,

a person who has mystical or new age beliefs

.

 

When used by skeptics, woo-woo is a derogatory and dismissive term used to refer to beliefs one considers nonsense or to a person who holds such beliefs.

 

Sometimes woo-woo is used by skeptics as a synonym for

pseudoscience, true-believer, or quackery. But mostly the term is used for its emotive content and is an emotive synonym for such terms as nonsense, irrational, nutter, nut, or crazy.

http://www.skepdic.com/woowoo.html

 

IMO, you are trying to project the rules of Spirituality forum into the LD.